University Of Miami School Of Law

2003]

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW

119

HOW TO DO THINGS WITH WORDS∗ J. L. Austin *1 LECTURE I WHAT I shall have to say here is neither difficult nor contentious; the only merit I should like to claim for it is that of being true, at least in parts. The phenomenon to be discussed is very widespread and obvious, and it cannot fail to have been already noticed, at least here and there, by others. Yet I have not found attention paid to it specifically. It was for too long the assumption of philosophers that the business of a ‘statement’ can only be to ‘describe’ some state of affairs, or to ‘state some fact’, which it must do either truly or falsely. Grammarians, indeed, have regularly pointed out that not all ‘sentences’ are (used in making) statements:1 there are, traditionally, besides (grammarians’) statements, also questions and exclamations, and sentences expressing commands or wishes or concessions. And doubtless philosophers have not intended to deny this, despite some loose use of ‘sentence’ for ‘statement’. Doubtless, too, both grammarians and philosophers have been aware that it is by no means easy to distinguish even questions, commands, and so on from statements by means of the few and jejune grammatical marks available, such as word order, mood, and the like: *2 though perhaps it has not been usual to dwell on the difficulties which this fact obviously raises. For how do we decide which is which? What are the limits and definitions of each? But now in recent years, many things which would once have been accepted without question as ‘statements’ by both philosophers and grammarians have been scrutinized with new care. This scrutiny arose somewhat indirectly—at least in philosophy. First came the view, not always formulated without unfortunate dogmatism, that a statement (of fact) ought to be ‘verifiable’, and this led to the view that many ‘statements’ are only what may be called pseudo-statements. First and most obviously, many ‘statements’ were shown to be, as KANT perhaps first argued systematically, strictly nonsense, despite an unexceptionable grammatical form: and the continual discovery of fresh types of nonsense, unsystematic though their classification and mysterious though their explanation is too often allowed to remain, has done on the whole nothing but good. Yet we, that is, even philosophers, set some limits to the amount of nonsense that we are prepared to admit we talk: so that it was natural to go on to ask, as a second stage, whether many apparent pseudo-statements really set out to be ‘statements’ at all. It has come to be commonly held that many utterances which look like statements are either not intended at all, or only intended in part, to record or impart straightforward information about the facts: for example, ‘ethical propositions’ are perhaps intended, solely or partly, to evince *3 emotion or to prescribe conduct or to influence it in special ways. Here too KANT was among the pioneers. We ∗

[From The William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955 (reprinted in HOW TO DO THINGS WITH WORDS, J. O. Urmson and Marina Sbisà, eds. Harvard University Press 1962). Page numbers in the text have been indicated by the * symbol, followed by a page number. The original footnote numbering has been left intact.—WHW] 1 It is, of course, not really correct that a sentence ever is a statement: rather, it is used in making a statement, and the statement itself is a`logical construction' out of the makings of statements.

120

COMMERCIAL LAW SUPPLEMENT

[Fall Semester

very often also use utterances in ways beyond the scope at least of traditional grammar. It has come to be seen that many specially perplexing words embedded in apparently descriptive statements do not serve to indicate some specially odd additional feature in the reality reported, but to indicate (not to report) the circumstances in which the statement is made or reservations to which it is subject or the way in which it is to be taken and the like. To overlook these possibilities in the way once common is called the ‘descriptive’ fallacy; but perhaps this is not a good name, as ‘descriptive’ itself is special. Not all true or false statements are descriptions, and for this reason I prefer to use the word ‘Constative’. Along these lines it has by now been shown piecemeal, or at least made to look likely, that many traditional philosophical perplexities have arisen through a mistake—the mistake of taking as straightforward statements of fact utterances which are either (in interesting non-grammatical ways) nonsensical or else intended as something quite different. Whatever we may think of any particular one of these views and suggestions, and however much we may deplore the initial confusion into which philosophical doctrine and method have been plunged, it cannot be doubted that they are producing a revolution in philosophy. If anyone wishes to call it the greatest and most salutary in its history, this is not, if you come to think of it, a *4 large claim. It is not surprising that beginnings have been piecemeal, with parti pris, and for extraneous aims; this is common with revolutions. PRELIMINARY ISOLATION OF THE PERFORMATIVE1 The type of utterance we are to consider here is not, of course, in general a type of nonsense; though misuse of it can, as we shall see, engender rather special varieties of ‘nonsense’. Rather, it is one of our second class—the masqueraders. But it does not by any means necessarily masquerade as a statement of fact, descriptive or constative. Yet it does quite commonly do so, and that, oddly enough, when it assumes its most explicit form. Grammarians have not, I believe, seen through this ‘disguise’, and philosophers only at best incidentally.2 It will be convenient, therefore, to study it first in this misleading form, in order to bring out its characteristics by contrasting them with those of the statement of fact which it apes. We shall take, then, for our first examples some utterances which can fall into no hitherto recognized grammatical category save that of ‘statement’, which are not nonsense, and which contain none of those verbal danger-signals which philosophers have by now detected or think *5 they have detected (curious words like ‘good’ or ‘all’, suspect auxiliaries like ‘ought’ or ‘can’, and dubious constructions like the hypothetical): all will have, as it happens, humdrum verbs in the first person singular present indicative active.1 Utterances can be found, satisfying these conditions, yet such that A. they do not ‘describe’ or ‘report’ or constate anything at all, are not ‘true or false’ ; and

1

Everything said in these sections is provisional, and subject to revision in the light of later sections.

2

Of all people, jurists should be best aware of the true state of affairs. Perhaps some now are. Yet they will succumb to their own timorous fiction, that a statement of ‘the law’ is a statement of fact. 1

Not without design: they are all ‘explicit’ performatives, and of that prepotent class later called ‘exercitives’.

2003]

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW

121

B. the uttering of the sentence is, or is a part of, the doing of an action, which again would not normally be described as, or as ‘just’, saying something. This is far from being as paradoxical as it may sound or as I have meanly been trying to make it sound: indeed, the examples now to be given will be disappointing. Examples (E. a) ‘I do (sc. take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife)’-as uttered in the course of the marriage ceremony.2 (E. b) ‘I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth’--as uttered when smashing the bottle against the stem. (E. c) ‘I give and bequeath my watch to my brother’--as occurring in a will. (E. d) ‘I bet you sixpence it will rain tomorrow.’ *6 In these examples it seems clear that to utter the sentence (in, of course, the appropriate circumstances) is not to describe my doing of what I should be said in so uttering to be doing1 or to state that I am doing it: it is to do it. None of the utterances cited is either true or false: I assert this as obvious and do not argue it. It needs argument no more than that `damn' is not true or false: it may be that the utterance `serves to inform you'--but that is quite different. To name the ship is to say (in the appropriate circumstances) the words ‘I name, &c.’. When I say, before the registrar or altar, &c., ‘I do’, I am not reporting on a marriage: I am indulging in it. What are we to call a sentence or an utterance of this type?2 I propose to call it a performative sentence or a performative utterance, or, for short, `a performative'. The term ‘performative’ will be used in a variety of cognate ways and constructions, much as the term ‘imperative’ is.3 The name is derived, of course, from ‘perform’, the usual verb with the noun ‘action’: it indicates that the issuing of the utterance is the performing of an action *7—it is not normally thought of as just saying something. A number of other terms may suggest themselves, each of which would suitably cover this or that wider or narrower class of performatives: for example, many performatives are contractual (‘I bet’) or declaratory (‘I declare war’) utterances. But no term in current use that I know of is nearly wide 2

[Austin realized that the expression ‘I do’ is not used in the marriage ceremony too late to correct his mistake. We have let it remain in the text as it is philosophically unimportant that it is a mistake. J. O. U.] 1 Still less anything that I have already done or have yet to do. 2 ‘Sentences’ form a class of ‘utterances’, which class is to be defined, so far as I am concerned, grammatically, though I doubt if the definition has yet been given satisfactorily. With performative utterances are contrasted, for example and essentially, ‘constative’ utterances : to issue a constative utterance (i.e. to utter it with a historical reference) is to make a statement. To issue a performative utterance is, for example, to make a bet. See further below on ‘illocutions’. 3 Formerly I used ‘performatory’ : but ‘performative’ is to be preferred as shorter, less ugly, more tractable, and more traditional in formation.

122

COMMERCIAL LAW SUPPLEMENT

[Fall Semester

enough to cover them all. One technical term that comes nearest to what we need is perhaps ‘operative’, as it is used strictly by lawyers in referring to that part, i.e. those clauses, of an instrument which serves to effect the transaction (conveyance or what not) which is its main object, whereas the rest of the document merely ‘recites’ the circumstances in which the transaction is to be effected.1 But ‘operative’ has other meanings, and indeed is often used nowadays to mean little more than ‘important’. I have preferred a new word, to which, though its etymology is not irrelevant, we shall perhaps not be so ready to attach some preconceived meaning. CAN SAYING MAKE IT SO? Are we then to say things like this: ‘To marry is to say a few words’, or ‘Betting is simply saying something’? Such a doctrine sounds odd or even flippant at first, but with sufficient safeguards it may become not odd at all. *8 A sound initial objection to them may be this; and it is not without some importance. In very many cases it is possible to perform an act of exactly the same kind not by uttering words, whether written or spoken, but in some other way. For example, I may in some places effect marriage by cohabiting, or I may bet with a totalisator machine by putting a coin in a slot. We should then, perhaps, convert the propositions above, and put it that ‘to say a few certain words is to marry’ or ‘to marry is, in some cases, simply to say a few words’ or ‘simply to say a certain something is to bet’. But probably the real reason why such remarks sound dangerous lies in another obvious fact, to which we shall have to revert in detail later, which is this. The uttering of the words is, indeed, usually a, or even the, leading incident in the performance of the act (of betting or what not), the performance of which is also the object of the utterance, but it is far from being usually, even if it is ever, the sole thing necessary if the act is to be deemed to have been performed. Speaking generally, it is always necessary that the circumstances in which the words are uttered should be in some way, or ways, appropriate, and it is very commonly necessary that either the speaker himself or other persons should also perform certain other actions, whether ‘physical’ or ‘mental’ actions or even acts of uttering further words. Thus, for naming the ship, it is essential that I should be the person appointed to name her, for (Christian) marrying, it is essential that I should not be already married with a wife *9 living, sane and undivorced, and so on: for a bet to have been made, it is generally necessary for the offer of the bet to have been accepted by a taker (who must have done something, such as to say ‘Done’), and it is hardly a gift if I say ‘I give it you’ but never hand it over. So far, well and good. The action may be performed in ways other than by a performative utterance, and in any case the circumstances, including other actions, must be appropriate. But we may, in objecting, have something totally different, and this time quite mistaken, in mind, especially 1

I owe this observation to Professor H. L. A. Hart.

2003]

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI SCHOOL OF LAW

123

when we think of some of the more awe inspiring performatives such as ‘I promise to . . . ’. Surely the words must be spoken ‘seriously’ and so as to be taken ‘seriously’? This is, though vague, true enough in general—it is an important commonplace in discussing the purport of any utterance whatsoever. I must not be joking, for example, nor writing a poem. But we are apt to have a feeling that their being serious consists in their being uttered as (merely) the outward and visible sign, for convenience or other record or for information, of an inward and spiritual act: from which it is but a short step to go on to believe or to assume without realizing that for many purposes the outward utterance is a description, true or false, of the occurrence of the inward performance. The classic expression of this idea is to be found in the Hippolytus (l. 612), where Hippolytus says h glwss omwmox,

h de frhn anwmoto

i.e. ‘my tongue swore to, but my heart (or mind or other *10 backstage artiste) did not’.1 Thus ‘I promise to . . .’ obliges me--puts on record my spiritual assumption of a spiritual shackle. It is gratifying to observe in this very example how excess of profundity, or rather solemnity, at once paves the way for immodality. For one who says ‘promising is not merely a matter of uttering words! It is an inward and spiritual act!’ is apt to appear as a solid moralist standing out against a generation of superficial theorizers: we see him as he sees himself, surveying the invisible depths of ethical space, with all the distinction of a specialist in the sui generis. Yet he provides Hippolytus with a let-out, the bigamist with an excuse for his ‘I do’ and the welsher with a defence for his ‘I bet’. Accuracy and morality alike are on the side of the plain saying that our word is our bond. If we exclude such fictitious inward acts as this, can we suppose that any of the other things which certainly are normally required to accompany an utterance such as ‘I promise that . . .’ or ‘I do (take this woman ...)’ are in fact described by it, and consequently do by their presence make it true or by their absence make it false? Well, taking the latter first, we shall next consider what we actually do say about the utterance concerned when one or another of its normal concomitants is absent. In no case do we say that the utterance was false but rather *11 that the utterance-or rather the act,1 e.g. the promise was void, or given in bad faith, or not implemented, or the like. In the particular case of promising, as with many other performatives, it is appropriate that the person uttering the promise should have a certain intention, viz. here to keep his word: and perhaps of all concomitants this looks the most suitable to be that which ‘I promise’ does describe or record. Do we not actually, when such intention is absent, speak of a ‘false’ promise? Yet so to speak is not to say that the utterance ‘I promise that . . .’ is false, in the sense that though he states that he does, he doesn't, or that though he describes he misdescribes—misreports. For he does promise: the promise here is not even void, though it is given in bad faith. His utterance is perhaps misleading, probably deceitful and doubtless wrong, but it is not a lie or a misstatement. At most we might make out a case for saying that it implies or insinuates a falsehood or a misstatement (to the effect that he does intend to do something): but that is a very different matter. Moreover, we do not speak of a false bet or a false christening; and that we do speak of a false promise need commit us no more than the fact that we speak of a false move. ‘False’ is not necessarily used of statements only. 1

But I do not mean to rule out all the offstage performers-the lights men, the stage manager, even the prompter; I am objecting only to certain officious understudies, who would duplicate the play. 1 We deliberately avoid distinguishing these, precisely because the distinction is not in point.